Cute, fed, but that doesn't change anything I'm saying. And while that's the ruleset for one form of diplomacy, it's highly debated overall. A lot of people play solo-win-only.

In my honest opinion allowing alliances over two people, except in the case of stalemates, kind of break's down the game's balance. This kind of thing rapidly devolves into "who can't get into the cool club" of the alliance, if you allow for allied victory, or at least victory between more than two parties. It becomes less a question of "who can win?" than "who can't?" I propose either allowing only one person to win with the required 18 supply centers, allowing a jointwin between ONLY two provided ONE of them has 18 supply, or some sort of model where we keep track of players' scores, and award like 1 point for 3-way-tie, 2 for 2-way, and 4 for solowin, or something like that.

@Q: bad predicament? How so? Viero screwed himself over by attempting to be overly manipulative and therefor untrustworthy, hence he was taken out the moment DRTJR was contained. Raya became part of this alliance through necessity. There was a point at which I could have taken Iberia without a problem and possibly France, but chose to honour our bargain. Making allies, isn't that what diplomacy is about? Backstabbing is easy, gaining trust isn't.

When did I say anything about a bad predicament? That wasn't in any of my posts as far as I remember. And I understand what happened with Viero and Raya completely; you're missing my point.

It's not even a matter of "it's harder to gain trust than to backstab", there's no difficulty gaining trust if both parties recognize that there's really no gameplay incentive for one to betray the other, since a jointwin is still a win for both parties, and allows them to combine forces.

If you allow only one person to win, that trust is hard to attain, and harder to maintain. You'll have the knowledge that you may betray each other eventually, but in the meanwhile, you'll ally out of necessity. But can you trust them? And if so, for how long? You have to ask yourselves these questions constantly, knowing that in the end only one can truly win.

Even if you only allow two people, when you have a three way alliance going like, say, the one you developed this game, the trust is always brought into question, as each person will have to question whether or not they can trust each of their other two allies, because SOMEONE will have to be betrayed in the end. In some ways, allowing an alliance between two people to win the game is far more interesting than just a solowin because it adds the opportunity to partner up and makes you question that partner

There has to be some sort of limit. And I'd argue that 3 is too many unless we go with a point/ranking system, simply because this is a 7 person game. At that point you're engaging almost half the playerbase in a winning alliance.

EDIT: As an example, Fed, every time I talked to you or outlaw about this, from early on in the game, you basically mentioned you had absolute trust in the other, and outlaw even said that at the start you guys just kind of decided to be bros. That isn't exactly a lot of difficulty earning trust, is it? If there was a limit of, say, only 2 people per alliance, you'd each have had to worry about whether the other has a secret deal with someone else. At that point there's a reason to build trust: Otherwise there's no reason not to add people to the alliance piecemeal.

Games with 3 way ties like this are just boring and anti-climatic and it makes the people watching very disappointed. Kinda like when in a gladiator match fight to the death and the two people become buddy buddy. You let the people watching down and make them demand their money back. Which might I add is VERY bad for business. Do you want to be the cause of that bad business guys? I don't think you do. Give us what we came here for and finish each other off.

Wow Fed, If you want to gripe at someone for being condescending, don't pinpoint the only fucking person here talking 100 percent complete logical sense. Your ally Outlaw is being the facetious asshole, not Quaetam.

In a game of 7 players, it's fucking rude to try and declare 3 winners. I totally expected Outlaw to be a rude douche ok, And I'm not in the least bit surprised Raya took this route too. But I thought Fed was better than that.

Also No Outlaw, you're now implying other people could have had the fortune you three had if they had worked with you better, and you're full of fucking shit. You're not going to sit here and try and argue that everyone could have been welcome, because you obviously wouldn't have tried to push for a four way tie, and no matter how you look at it a three way tie is still a big FUCK YOU in the face of four other people.

Had no intent to condescend, my apologies. I was annoyed at the time; I've always had a bit of a peeve when I make a logical point, or rather, a logical argument, and someone responds by not listening to any of it and just posting a link, or similar.

I very much appreciate that you've been willing to engage in dialogue since then.

Viero wrote:Actually why are we even debating about this? Spoon has the final say as he is the host. And he already said that you guys have to keep on going.

For the sake of this game, as it is hosted by Spoon, I would say we go with the rules outlined at the start, or respect the host in whatever decision he makes. At least for me, our discussion and my opinions are more aimed at the long term, as in, what would be a good idea for future diplomacy rules. Which, again, is either do Solo Win Only, or up to two people in an allied victory. Some sort of limitation on the number of players around for the game to end is necessary.

One way or another, just as it is with mafia, these sort of things should be at the discretion of the host for each game. That doesn't prohibit us from discussing what might be a valid ruleset.

That being said, guys (this goes for me as well ), it might be best to relocate this discussion or have it later, so we don't disrupt Spoon's game any further.

I went into this game with the knowledge, that in theory shared victories are possible, but didn't know the rules for that. I started asking Spoon about it quite some time ago, a few weeks. I never got a definite answer, but I kept playing under tge impression that it was a viable outcome.

Spoon, just come out and say what your final decision is. You're the GM, we'll all abide by it.

_________________HG/SS Friends Code: 2364 8721 9695B/W Friends Code: 2193 7770 9554 X/Y Friends Code:1805-2682-3033"Foxes never lose their tricks, do they?" - Quaetman"We'll be going about our business one day and then someone will be like "hm, where's Barda" and Raya will all suspiciously be like "WELL DON'T LOOK AT ME"..." - Rocket Admin CamillaKing Avalanche:

SpoonMan Abrams X wrote:I don't see what is so unclear about it. It says in the OP "First to 18 supply centers wins". There is a total of 34 supply centers so it is impossible for more then 1 person to win w/o having to attack another.

In regards to a "tie", no more then one person will be declared a winner. I simply haven't decided how I am going to resolve it yet. Only thing I have brought up is a joke about making Raya, Fed, & Outlaw tied for third and declaring myself the victor~

Sorry for the delay. Between being busy with work and other shenanigans, I haven't had time to mull over this game any more... until now, anyway. With that said I have come to a conclusion.

Based on how the last 2 game years have gone, and the fact that one of the players is considerably more powerful then the other two, I hereby declare that;

Russia/Outlawis the winnner!

Followed by France/Raya and Austria/Fedaykin.

While this game opened with a lot of enthusiasm, and probably one of the most exhilarating starts I have seen, it did drop off as time wore on (though for this game that is fairly common occurrence). Maybe had some circumstances been different, and had I been able to be a bit more attentive (I once again apologize for the delays, especially for these last few phases), this game could've been considerably different.

Thanks to those for playing, as well as others for your interest and following along. I hope this game was ultimately enjoyable for you.

A sort of further recap & review for the game in general as well as the players will go up sometime sooner rather then later (no guaruntees til after the weekend, unfortunately... and yes, I'll have something by next weekend ). Any of the players have any comments/quiestions/recaps/etc of their own are more then welcome to post them, but keep salt to minimum and keep it kosher, please and thank you~

I had a lot of fun, though admittedly I hadn't a clue what I was doing at the start. It would have been nice to have played more offensively, but let's be honest I did well to last as long as I did, so I can't complain. Definately looking forward to the next round!

The game works well as a forum based game (especially with all the private chat skullduggery), but the one complaint I have with the gameplay is that if more than one player attacks you you're screwed. When it's one-on-one it's all about strategy and outthinking your opponent, but two-on-one and you crumble like pastry. We saw this happen multiple times. Granted it encourages you to form alliances to protect yourself, but it's still pretty harsh.

So, who's up for playing in the next game? Are we chosing countries or having them randomly assigned?

_________________HG/SS Friends Code: 2364 8721 9695B/W Friends Code: 2193 7770 9554 X/Y Friends Code:1805-2682-3033"Foxes never lose their tricks, do they?" - Quaetman"We'll be going about our business one day and then someone will be like "hm, where's Barda" and Raya will all suspiciously be like "WELL DON'T LOOK AT ME"..." - Rocket Admin CamillaKing Avalanche: